Fine.

@Apophis Get a job please.

Don't critisise people who contribute when you yourself do not

That's not how leftists define a capitalist. Which is fine.

Maybe ask around for some books

Or something

Right, it's not like I work to provide the internet I'm talking to you with @BoleslawBierutLover. Quit your ad hominem bs

>Capital is the measure of contribution to society.
What about volunteering or unpaid work? It is a bit cynical to say all contributions are reducible to creation of capital. It is not mandatory and when someone else takes the credit for you work, that's exploitation also.

Alright, you can choose not to accept capital for work. As a proponent of voluntary charity, I'll concede that, but in general that claim stands. They've contributed labor, or goods, or whatever it may be, and that causes them to get capital

hence why those the consumer favors get more

So it is possible to do unpaid work. There is not a necessary relationship between work and capital. Therefore your statement that capital is a measure of contribution is arbitrary and assumes something that is not inherent in the nature of labour. Capital is optional result of labour, among many things. You are putting too much weight on the assumption that all society ought to be run this way. This is called ideological bias.

there is a relationship between work and capital, if some wish to not take any form of capital for their work that's fine, I've nothing against that. But people are generally compelled to make a profit, and it's through labor, be that as a business owner or as an employee of a business that satisfies the consumer, that that capital is made. Therefore, while work can be done without making capital, capital cannot be made without doing work.

Are investments considered work?

Yes

That's kind of what investing is

So the act of buying and selling is considered work, probably the minimal kind. Should you get paid according to the amount of work?

You should get paid based on voluntary agreement as to what the labor or exhange is worth. If the investor voluntarily agrees with the investee that he should get X return on profits, and both parties are okay with that, then X return of profits would be the value of the investor's contribution

Fuck no, investing isn't work

Wanna elaborate at all?

Yes, but i have no idea why someone would think that in the first place

Well when you say "work", do you mean profession, labor, or what?

>voluntary agreement
Here is the problem. If the conventions of the market are not favourable to you, you can not negotiate with it, else you have no market. You are assuming that all traders have equal footing. If you are in a disadvantaged position, as dictated by the market, there is no such thing as 'voluntary agreement'. You will starve.

Again what I said workers are subject to what the capitalists decide for them

Yes, and one can choose not to contribute through work and face the consequence of starving. The employer merely offers an alternative

VOLUNTARILY

Wait, do you think that all buyers and sellers always operate at equilibrium, or not at all?

And about being able to control the market through ur wallet

Voluntary starvation. You read it here folks.

^

@Apophis "The Ministry of the Meat and Dairy Industry of the Tadjik SSR, in the quest for high profits for its enterprises in 1970 and 1971, reduced the production of inexpensive products that were in stable demand among the population and unjustifiably increased the production of more expensive products. As a result, the enterprises of this Ministry obtained millions of rubles of profit in excess of the plan".

(S. Starostin & G. Emdin: "The Five Year Plan and the Soviet Way of Life", in: "Planovoe khoziaistvo" (Planned Economy), No. 6, 1972, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 15, No. 10; February 1973; p. 95-6).

On the market

The employer isn't "offering" shit. The employer has hoarded a large amount of productive capital, and uses the state to enforce that hoarding. He will let you rent it back per hour, at a rate equal to the difference between your productivity and your wage

In your ideology, those who don't work and contribute should still recieve capital. In capitalism, one must contribute to society, be that through owning a business that can only remain if the consumers are okay with the product and/or price, through working for such a business, or to front financial risk for such a business with a voluntarily agreed return.

@Apophis What are you talking about typically in marxist society there is little to no unemployment?

Compare that to the armies of unemployed in capitalist ones

"The Ministry of the Meat and Dairy Industry of the Tadjik SSR, in the quest for high profits for its enterprises in 1970 and 1971, reduced the production of inexpensive products that were in stable demand among the population and unjustifiably increased the production of more expensive products. As a result, the enterprises of this Ministry obtained millions of rubles of profit in excess of the plan".

(S. Starostin & G. Emdin: "The Five Year Plan and the Soviet Way of Life", in: "Planovoe khoziaistvo" (Planned Economy), No. 6, 1972, in: "Problems of Economics", Volume 15, No. 10; February 1973; p. 95-6).

Read

I am done with ancaps bye

This is normal though in Austrian economics. iirc

Because you kill people who dare not do exactly as your government demands. There's no unemployed because they're in labor camps or dead.

🤔